Nietzsche argued that if one stares into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you. I was chatting last night to a staffer attached to a pwerful Republican Chairman in the House. I say chatting, because conversation is not the way to describe the experience of peering deeply into the very shallow world that is the Republican Congress.
Her take, which I promised above the fold, is this The House is safe. The Senate, with Kerry running is all but safe - with three Democatic pickups in Alaska, Okalhoma and Illinois, and at least three losses out of the "Southern Sweep" of five. Georgia looks good to the people to her , and she thinks that Florida does too - and that means that they only need a 1-2 split out of LA, NC and SC. Meaning they have one seat to give if Kerry is the nominee and loses, one if they win. "That means every dollar we get can go into keeping the White House."
Then we got on to issues...
Foremost she said that the Republicans were going to run on "The President's deserved Reputation for Integrity", and proposals would reflect "the faith the American people have in his ability to make tough decisions" that produce "good results" in the end.
Examples:
"We are going to get you on the trade issue. The Republican Party never took a stand on free trade. We've established credility on America First." Meaning Free Trade when, and to the extent, deemed beneficial by the President. The idea, as I understood it, is that Bush is willing to stand up to the world, as Iraq proves, and will draw the line when American jobs that are improtant are threatened. In a sense, they are going to run on Free Trade Minus. Bush, the argument runs, will protect real Americans. Bush cna make "the tough decisions" even if it upsets "Old Europe's idea of Free Trade." The implication being that we protect the world, and that France and the other Euroepean nations are sponging off of us by insisting on adherence to "artificial definitions" of what constitutes Free Trade. The message, as I heard it, is "The President will stand up for real free trade, not what other countries call free trade."
Apperantly there is rumored,and I will underline the word rumored, to be legislation bubbling its way through the process - I think that means K Street, because she hadn't seen it being worked on in the House - that would, in effect, allow the President to simply declare that unfair labor practices were causing job loss, and take action accordingly. When I ribbed her on lobbyists writing the bils, she replied back flatly in that tone of voice that people use for religious doctrine "Shouldn't the people who know the subject write the bill?" It's like "keeping more of your money". Sounds OK until you realize what it means. Whether it will come to anything - if it is in fact happening, which I am somewhat inclined to doubt - is another question.
The next domestic issue that the she felt that was going to be a vital wedge is "services for less". "By privatizing services away from all those inefficient Government Bureaucrats, we can offer more to the American people through the free market." The frame, again, I could be wrong in my understanding of what she was outlining, is that next year it isn't that medicare and soial security are to be slashed - but instead "privatized", with the corresponding reductions in cost being "savings to the American taxpayer." And that this will be reflected in the budget proposals to be floated. Basically, they are going to project that privatizing will save as much money as it has to to bring projections into a reasonable range. Again, I could be misunderstanding her, I wouldn't want to think that government has switched over to POOTA accounting standards, but that is how I took what was being said. The message is "those aren't cuts, they are price rollbacks".
Finally there was the issue of domestic security - or as she claled it "The Homeland Issue". Again, the idea is to link it with Crime. The Democrats are soft on Crime, and therefore soft on terrorism. The talking points will be something along the lines of "the democrats will want to try and rehabilitiate the terrorists", some kind of Willie Horton tag will be found - tying Osma to Clinton. "Afterall, he is the one who let our defense and intelligence erode so much that they gave bad estimates on Iraq and were not able to warn the President in time about 911."
The slippage in the polls didn't bother her - the same poll data that Democratic strategists point to as signs of Bush's vulnerability - that he spikes up and then marhces down - was to her a sign "we can peak any time we want to." Which made her "completely confident".
She also said that it was "very interesting work" on the committee, and complained only that "there has been a crack down on personal use of cell phones - we are only supposed to make de minimis use of them." Adding that she, personally, had always been careful about her use of it - and that an amazing number of people working on staff did not have computers of their own at home or high speed connections to their houses.
Enough of the people, enough of the time seems to be their strategy this year. Or at least, that is the impression I got from this one conversation. The emems then would be to give more power to the man you trust, get cost savings from the free market, and be tough on terrorism.
That's the Dispatch from DC for today. Over to you Kossacks.